LG. (KARMIK) AND ORS. versus PRAHALAD MANI TRIPTHI

Citation: [2007] 5 S.C.R. 978 · Decided: 27-04-2007 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S.B. SINHA · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 3 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
LG. (KARMIK) AND ORS. 
\-
v. 
PRAHALAD MANI TRIP A THI 
APRIL 27, 2007 
B 
(S.B. SINHA ANDMARKANDEY KATJU, JJ.] 
Service Law: 
> 
4 
c 
Compassionate appointment-Incumbent accepting appointment as peon 
without any demur-Later contending that he was entitled for appointment 
on a higher post-Tribunal directing the authority to appoint him in Class-
Ill post-Affirmed by High Court-On appeal, Held: All appointments must 
confirm to the constitutional scheme of equality as adumbrated under Articles 
14 and 16 of the Constitution-Supreme Court, however, carved out an 
D exception in favour of the children or other relatives of the Officer who dies 
or have become incapacitated while serving in Police department-Exception 
so carved out must be strictly complied with-Appointment on compassionate 
ground given only for meeting the immediate hardship faced by the family 
by reason of the death of the bread-earner-It should be kept confined only 
E 
to the purpose it seeks to achieve-Appellant accepted appointment in a 
lower post without any demur whatsoever, later he could not have been 
permitted to contend that he was entitled for a higher post although not 
eligible therefor-Constitution of India, 1950-Articles 14 and 16. 
Respondent's father was constable in Uttar Pradesh Police Service. He 
F 
died in harness. Respondent was considered for appointment on compassionate 
ground as a Constable by the authorities but he was not found eligible therefore 
' -
having not satisfied the physical standard stipulated under the rules. He was 
appointed as a Peon. He accepted the said appointment without any demur 
whatsoever. He, however filed an application before the Uttar Pradesh Service 
Tribunal praying for his absorption in the post of Constable (M) with 
.. 
G consequential benefits from the date of his initial appointment. The Tribunal 
directed the appellant to appoint him in Class III posts with a further direction 
that the services rendered by him to the post of ordinary Peon be counted 
., _ 
towards his pensionary benefits in the class III posts. A Writ Petition filed 
before the High Court questioning the correctness of the order was dismissed 
H 
978 
LG. (KARMIK) v. PRAHALAD MANI TRIPATHI 
979 
by it. Hence the present appeal. 
A 
-> 
Appellant-employer contended that the Order of the Tribunal and 
consequently that of the High Court suffers from a manifest error in so far 
as they failed to take into consideration that he respondent having accepted 
the post of a Peon, was estopped from claiming a higher post after a period of 
five years; and that the rules provided for appointment only to a post for which B 
the candidate possessed the academic and other qualifications. 
Respondent-employee submitted that in the facts and circumstances of 
-.-
""' 
this case, this Court should not exercise its discretionary jurisdiction under 
Article 136 of the Constitution oflndia as not only a prayer was made by the c 
respondent for his appointment to a post which was commensurate with the 
academic qualifications he possessed, and the Superint~ndent of Police 
recommended therefore, but having regard to his alleged deficiencies in 
physical fitness only, the Police Headquarters directed his appointment only 
as a peon. 
D 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: 1.1. In the matter of appointment, the State is obligated to give 
~ 
effect to the constitutional scheme of equality as adumbrated under Articles 
14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. All appointments, therefore, must 
conform to the said constitutional scheme. This Court, however, while laying E 
emphasis on the said proposition carved out an exception in favour of the 
children or other relatives of the officer who dies or who becomes incapacitated 
while rendering services in the police department. [Para 6) [982-A, BJ 
Yogender Pal Singh and Ors. v. Union of India and Ors., A.LR. (1987) 
SC 1015, relied on . 
F 
. ' 
1.2. Public employment is considered to be a wealth. It in terms of the 
constitutional scheme cannot be given on descent. When such an exception 
has been carved out by this Court, the same must be strictly complied with. 
Appointment on compassionate ground is given only for meeting the immediate G 
hardship which is faced by the family by reason of the death of the bread earner. 
When an appointment is made on compassionate ground, it should be kept 
._,, 
confined only to the purpose it seeks to achieve, the idea being not to provide 
for 

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.